Take the New York Times Climate Quiz

h/t Schrodinger’s Cat How much of a climate deplorable are you? NYT has published an offensive climate quiz, apparently aimed at helping readers discover whether they should ever buy another copy of the New York Times.

Trump Has Choices to Make on Climate Policy. What Would You Do?

By TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG FEB. 2, 2017

Donald Trump and his cabinet have sent mixed signals on some big environmental decisions they face. Take this interactive quiz and see where the different possible choices lead.

Apparently I’m a climate deplorable – after completing the quiz, NYT provided the following in my opinion deeply offensive comment about my choices.

You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).

Well done New York Times – in the unlikely event that you still have any climate skeptic readers, this quiz should help ensure they dump your publication.

“You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”

You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?). …..”””””

This whole hand-wringing over climate change by the “Grey Lady” is ready-made for a Trump-special, art-of-the-deal, kumbaya-booger resolution:

-In particular, the federal government merely needs to comb social media, academic publications, MSM news archives, political speeches, and the like, to identify those hive-tool thought-leaders who maintain that antrhopogenic CO2 “KILLS BABIES!!!” and “KILLS POLAR-BEARS!!!”

-President Trump can then immediately put those, so identified, on the “no fly list” and justify that action for the most basic and readily understood of security reasons: namely, those who deliberately engage in conduct that, in their very own minds, and by the standards of their very own sincerely and firmly held system of beliefs, “KILLS BABIES” and “KILLS POLAR-BEARS”, self-identify themselves as cull-crazy, berserker, slithering, nerd-pit-spawn Malthusian-maniacs of the most atrocious and repellent sort, who should not, for that reason, be allowed to board aircraft, in these perilous times, and thereby threaten the safety of the flying public.

Voila! Reduced carbon and the spastic-dork, gibbering-weenie, smarty-panties-in-a-bunch, exploding-head-genic-zit-pus-and-brain-matter-splatter-rich, freak-out, quality-time, schadenfreude-normative, popcorn-friendly entertainment-spectacle that will inevitably be delivered by our greenwashed, complete-bunch-of-phonies, carbon-piggie betters, as they pass through the various stages of grief, in the process of their coming to grips with the reality–the “HORROR!!!”–that they must practice what they preach, for once, almost as if they were one–the “DOUBLE HORROR!!!”–with us despised, coolie-trash, herdling-nobody, cull-fodder, expendable peons. A win-win for all!

P. S. Nothing will do more to spark a panic-attack flight from the Gaia-hustle, by the hive’s good-comrades, than for our nature-boys and girls to be suddenly presented with the loss of their current, much-coveted, brazen-hypocrite, jet-set, private-jet, frequent-flyer, unlimited, carbon-indulgence pass, as the price to be paid for their impassioned, and, heretofore, but no longer, self-serving, trough-magnet convictions.

I read recently that Oprah Winfrey is now going to have a role on 60 minutes.
They are taking the final step from being an organization that only pretended to the news, to an organization that abandon’s all pretense at being a news organization.

I believe the last time I watched sixty minutiae was way back when they faked the GM crash gas tank fires.
When the folks who caught them blow the tank showed the spark and initial explosion, before the truck hit.

Baad timing and really stupid choice. They probably helped the gore guy and his little idiot helper, the anti-science guy, do the CO2 trick bottles and thermometer goofup.

8-)
I noticed that too.
Maybe they’ll let us in on the little secret as when the Senate actually voted on it, let alone ratified it?
President Obama’s word had the authority to make an international agreement legally binding?
They wish. (I think they’re still smarting over the the US not joining the League of Nations that President Wilson inspired and promoted.)
Whatever authority Obama had to enter into an international agreement without Senate ratification, Trump has the same to say …uh… “6-21-3-11 that!”

I think you need to read their words very carefully. Notice that they did not call it a “treaty”, they called it an agreement. Since agreements do not require any ratification by Senate, they can say whatever they want – after all since Obama agreed to it it probably could be argued it was “ratified”

Udar, please!
If the Senate did not ratify it, the US is not bound. If Obama agreed to it, it still was not RATIFIED.
Since you didn’t seem to read and think about all I said, IE “I think they’re still smarting over the the US not joining the League of Nations that President Wilson inspired and promoted.” (I probably should have said “agreed to” rather than “promoted), I repeat:

Whatever authority Obama had to enter into an international agreement without Senate ratification, Trump has the same to say …uh… “6-21-3-11 that!”

Where did I say that US is bound to anything? All I say is that they had been very careful with their language to on one hand create impression that it was a treaty that was ratified while actually not saying that.
Another words, she did not make a mistake – she is very cleverly lying by omission.

“And now it’s all right, it’s okay
And you may look the other way
We can try to understand
The New York Times’ effect on man
Whether you’re a brother or whether you’re a mother
You’re stayin’ alive, stayin’ alive” – Bee Gees

Given the low rates per reader as shown at http://www.nytimes.com/marketing/selfservice/help.html#cost I wouldn’t worry about helping them much. At $8.00 per thousand impressions, your page view might generate less than a penny for the NYT. The high quality demographics of WUWT readers might produce somewhat more, but still …

You can read as many as you want on their site and many others if you google the article and click on the link at the top.
The Real Clear Politics site uses links to google searches for their articles on such sites.

Oh dear they don’t like my choices either I must be a very bad man or maybe I’ve read up on some of this stuff and can see through the hype! Hay-ho. As a Brit I’m maybe allowed a bit of leeway as we voted to get out of the EU so that shows we are a bit unbalanced.

I took the George Mason University’s Center for Climate Communication’s quiz several years ago. I was rated as “Dissmissive” complete with a graphic of a gauge pegged out at zero. I was so proud of myself I used the graphic as my Facebook profile picture. Sadly, they no longer offer it, but it was the usual clap trap.http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/

My result? It’s worse than I thought!….. “You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”

How about the response after the first question. “The planet won’t like that.” Can you be any more egotistical, naive, and ignorant than pretending to speak for a planet. I could one up them and claim the universe wants them to wear concrete shoes and go swimming in the deep end, but that would just be so liberal of me.

I started to take the quiz but the choices are insufficient to make rational decisions. They equate pollution with CO2 and do not differentiate between real pollution such as smog, and aerosols. If you want to give a quiz it must be unbiased or it is useless. I could go on and on but will leave it there.

I noticed the exact same thing: First ask a leading question and then give only 2 choices, neither of which is a logical answer.
This is the disingenuous scenario that the modern media concocts. The erect a false straw man position (in this case by not allowing rational responses) then knock apart the ludicrous effigy while denigrating the reader. This is religious proselytizing not news, and surely not even convincing.
Disappointingly annoying at best.

Implicitly claiming that your camp has a monopoly on “good” science and never engages in black and white thinking, with that instantly recognizable pretentious tone of unearned authority. Nice.

As if we haven’t seen a hundred times what happens when inconvenient science gets in the way of the prog-lefty’s agenda. All that vaunted complexity and detail just go out the window and they start sounding like a job interview for inquisitors.

The sad thing is that they confuse “protection of the environment” with “feel good living in western world”. With our tax dollars and the money fossil fuel industry has put forward for environmental protection, we have protected and maintains parks, regulated hunting, clean waters, etc. Send all those who did NOT do a bad job in the quiz over to Ghana, Kenya, or Botswana and check out environment and wildlife – let alone water quality. And – more important – most kids over there cannot do homework at night because they have no light. I am talking about millions of people – and if you look at India – a population double the US has NO fridge to keep food safely stored! Pathetic approach by NYT!

OK, someone had to do it. I was a good boy and answered ‘appropriately’. Here’s my praiseworthy assessment:

“You did a pretty good job protecting the environment and possibly avoiding some of the worst effects of climate change. But there was no way for you to stop climate change in its tracks with this set of policies.

On the downside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress andp many of the people who voted for him may not be happy with most of your decisions.”

Of course there’s no way to win, that’s the entire point of the faith. Much like the Christian dogma of original sin, even the true believers who seek salvation through self abuse must be left with the feeling they aren’t pious enough.

The faith is founded on guilt. Unless the faithful retain that sense of guilt they’ll wander away from the flock. It’s a very old formula.

Catholic doctrine, you mean. “Christianity is Catholic” is a very common misconception. Several Evangelical denominations, as just one example, reject the concept of original sin (if not openly denounce it as false teaching).

For Bartleby and others: each of us is born in original sin. Adam and Eve had a super relationship with God, and would have been immortal. That was the deal: simply follow what God says, and enjoy a life of eternity in the Garden of Eden, whatever that was.

This is how we raise our children. Follow what I say so that things will go well for you. –Not such a stretch to see this – for those of us with kids at or beyond the teenage years.

They chose disobedience, and the price of that was death – really, the opposite of love – selfishness. If you have true love, you would not secretly disobey the beloved.

–There are some among us who have lived in a circumstance where disobedience of some protocol or behavior would likely or surely end up in death. So, to some, this is not so far-fetched.

Humanity could have ended there with Adam and Eve.

But out of love, God added a redemption plan: Adam and Eve would deservedly die, but they would have the capability to produce successive generations – eventually, like any debt or penalty, it must be paid, and that debt has since rested on their descendants. So, Adam and Eve, although doomed to death, were able to produce another generation.

Hence, the genitalia are perceived as shameful: they are a reminder that each of us has been allowed to come into being based on God’s loving intervention for shameful disobedience. And, we are allowed to live under this debt of our original parents.

Once that act of disobedience, the original sin, is redeemed, we get restored to that original state: eternal life of love with God. The crime was: believing that you could ignore and disobey your loving creator and the deal you had with Him, supplanting His rules with your own, but expecting Him to hold up His end of the deal per those rules.

Yes – we live in a universe with justice. Each of us has a natural sense of justice. You eventually will either get justice or mercy. -Redemption is eagerly, lovingly offered. It just takes humility.

Their unbalanced and partisan position on climate change was what triggered me to end the subscription some years ago already…

Would you buy shares from a corporation whose share history is changing over time? (Looking better and better and smooth increase when in the past it was not such?) If a salesman comes to me and tries to sell me those shares and I find out all those retroactive changes in their shares history….
nope, nope, nope, I do not buy

Thanks for the heads up (and, lol, for the clarification — “Who? Huh?”, heh).

Feb. 2 (UPI) — Republicans in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday suspended committee rules in order to advance Scott Pruitt’s nomination as head of the Environmental Protection Agency amid a Democrat boycott.

The committee’s approval now pushes his nomination to the full Senate floor for a vote. Republicans unanimously approved Oklahoma Attorney General Pruitt, President Donald Trump’s EPA secretary nominee, with an 11-0 vote. …

These greasers only want your e-mail address, so they can send you advertisements for commercial products or services to the house without asking. This is an old game. The same game is often also with the headings, which do not fit at all to the content of the article. That’s what the Springer-Gazette “Bild” has introduced with us decades ago. If you wanted to match all the foolish and false headlines of the mainstream press, this would be a fake news parade from here to the moon and back.

well, first of all it wasn’t the snowflakes and they didn’t burn down the campus.
berzerkely kids don’t have ninja costumes in their wardrobes.
it was paid provocateurs.
the started some small fires, shot off fireworks, smashed some windows and harassed people.
the cops did nothing.
i don’t suppose the head of UC (janet napolitano) would have wanted it known the troublemakers were organized from out of town.
so don’t be lazy. it’s easy to find out stuff. if you overegg it, your overegging can become the topic.

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure.

For those who are not acquainted with UK newspapers, the Guardian is the main left-wing broadsheet in the UK, and it’s extensively read by all the Left establishment. The BBC gets all of its news from it.

It was famous for the number of spelling errors per page, and once actually spelt the name of the paper wrong on a page heading (Not, alas, the front page…). Ever since then it has bee affectionately know by this mis-spelling – the GRAUNIAD….

I didn’t realize just how vicious and mendacious the Guardian was until the Rotherham scandal was blown open in 2014. The paper did its level best to suffocate the truth and to smear the whistleblowers.

I got a laugh out of the questions and “wait and see what the cities and states do”. Nope the EPA currently is not allowing that now, are they. If a State wants a shiny new coal fired power plant will the N.Y.T. support them and give its blessing just as it would if a city or State wanted wind turbines. As a matter of fact are there not cities and counties were the local population is fighting against the wind farms? And who is is forcing the development of them in those locations?

“Do as I say not as I do”
When I lived back east I always felt the N.Y.T was at it’s brightest in the Franklin stove.

but no state wants one and no commercial organisation would build one… this is not a question of CO2, but lack of any possible return in investment given cheaper options (shale gas or in some places solar)

MarkW, I suppose it depends on how long you want your satellite to remain powered. We send up many without solar panels that run off of onboard stored energy. And, these satellites are not powering anything other than themselves let alone a first world economy. Furthermore any maneuvering requires impulse thrusters that aren’t powered by electricity (well the valves are).
True there are niches that renewables fill, but for now they remain far from economical mainstream power generation.

Bryan A: So true. And they are very poor substitutes for the grid. People may report glowingly about “living off grid”, but very few actually enjoy it and few do it for any length of time. It’s labor intensive, expensive and a real pain. A neighbor’s wind turbine was torn apart in high wind, again. He’s had two destroyed by high wind. Controllers burn out, batteries freeze or overheat. Utopia it isn’t.

What were they thinking? Newspapers aren’t thriving. They need all the subscribers they can get. They can’t afford to alienate anyone … but they do this.

The liberal elites are arrogant and out-of-touch to an extent that borders on schizophrenia,

a RH-deficient condition. It offers passive, alienated disengagement and detached over-aware introspection, the loss of a grounding sense of self, a loss of meaning, bizarreness and absurdity, and a tendency to veer between fantasies of impotence and omnipotence. link

and it’s laid out like a skinner book.
i don’t know if you ever had those. i can’t find a reference on google.
they have questions on each page and the answer when you turn it.
it’s designed to maximize the formation of associations.

The way she is saying it makes me think of a kindergarten teacher explaining to her charges the importance of coloring inside the lines. She might be better suited to that career than working for a newspaper which views itself as being for people who are intellectually superior.

Oh my, it will be all my fault if CAGW happens! I would like to think that this quiz is giving the NYT a better idea of where Americans stand on climate. But I suspect the majority of their readers gave all the “correct” answers….

“How Did You Do?
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

“On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”

– BTW, when did Congress approve & ratify the Paris Climate “Treaty”… as claimed by that NYT’s quiz?

“The United States have ratified the agreement and the legally binding requirements that come with it.”

I am utterly deplorable, according to the NYT’s Lysenko-esque faux survey.
And this particular question really stood out as an example of how despicable the NYT has become about dishonestly informing its readers:

“Time for some international decisions
Mr. Trump said during the campaign that he would cancel the Paris agreement, in part because he thinks it’s bad for business. (Many businesses disagree.)
The United States have ratified the agreement and the legally binding requirements that come with it.
If the United States withdraws from the agreement, other countries have indicated they may try to punish the United States with sanctions.
So what should Mr. Trump do about the Paris agreement: cancel it or leave it in place?”

The “Paris Accords” are *not* ratified by the United States.
The NYT either knows that or should know that basic bit of Constitutional Law. Either way, their many readers who lack critical thinking skills will be misinformed.

Mr. Kafkazar — are you serious? I wonder if they would say, “The business entity are or is?” Wow. The divide between British and American English is, I’ve come to realize, far more than just a parting of ways over spelling or like mundane issues. Using sort of a “royal we” in that context reveals that British and Americans, at some deep level, think differently about the world. That appears to be why we/they differ on such things as, “He’s in the hospital” and “He’s in hospital.”

Janice, it was (and in my mind still is) proper to use “These United States.” Until Federalism was turned upside down by progressives, individual States made up the whole and were assumed to have all the powers not granted the Federal government or the People by our Constitution.

The current situation goes to show how centralized big money spread around can pollute any good idea of governance. A good (bad?) example is withholding Federal monies if schools do not do everything the Department of Education illegally tells them to do. The progressives at UC Berkeley may come to regret that, though, based on President The Donald’s response to the riots.

If the Dems lose even more seats after the midterm (likely if they continue to be so obstructive, petulant, and overall insufferable), we could have a real opportunity to correct one of the biggest mistakes in our history. A realistic chance of repealing the 17th amendment. This would be key to restoring proper federalism, and would also deliver the deathblow to the progressive Democrats as a politically significant group. Hopefully President Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress are made aware of this possibility.

Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Fair, about “these United States.” I agree, but, I would not, now, capitalize “united” in that phrase anymore (except, of course, in quoting, e.g., John Adams or writing in the style of an older style writer), for, to me that is archaic language. And, of course, I will, here, as to that phrase, not argue the point about its being archaic. It is very possible that it is only my “ear” for words which is giving me that impression; it may still be good modern useage to most Americans. And who would be right? They would! Language is what is spoken and written by the majority of educated people using it.

And, again, I may be incorrect, but, to my “ear,” “the United States” is (in modern use) always the name of the country, and not = to “the united states.”.

And, yes, long live federalism WITH “powers reserved” state sovereignty!

You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).

Start Over

I like the fact they give you a do-over.
Not many surveys or polls give you a chance to correct your failings.

On the NYT web site, the quiz won’t show you a question until you’ve answered the previous one. So I took the quiz, gave all the “wrong” answers, and saved it all here, so you can read it and laugh at it without having to bother with answering the questions:http://www.webcitation.org/6nypHuF0m

More plants => more everything, we all live on plants, increased biosphere

I think Freeman Dyson made an estimation how many people live now due to the extra CO2 that is in the atmosphere since the pre-industrial time.
The result was at least 15%
That is 1 000 000 000 people out of the current 7 000 000 000!

It is not so difficult to make the calculation, then look at the numbers and think.
So what are these clowns arguing for?

You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).

It is not a law it is a decree made by the last POTUS, King Obama. POTUS Clinton tried many of the same things while attacking the coal and nuclear industries. Most did not survive court challenges.

POTUS Bush did it correctly and congress passed new regulations on old coal plants. As a result many old inefficient coal plants closed. Generally speaking, the power industry want consistent regulations so that it can make decisions.

It was very definitely poorly worded queries. Many would have had different answers if they had been phrased better or allowed for a third option. Like
Uphold the Law
Scrap the Law
Rewrite the Law to exclude CO2 as a pollutant

Took the test.
I am simply single handed ruining the whole globe. Just wonder why all the greens can not save it unless all goes in for it. All have to agree before anything can be done. Even a single misbeliever can ruin the whole plan.
Maybe it is because they have no plan. We shall fight, protest, make our representatives act, and on and on it goes, but not any specific direction. The problem is told to be the problem of our life time, but they wont say what is the most important issue to deal with to a start.

Ha ha ha. There was one telling “slip” in their stupid quiz, in the question that says should we continue subsidies for wind and solar, or say goodbye to those nascent schemes. Of course, without the subsidies those so-called renewables go away completely. No one will invest in them on a level playing field.

Anyway, after the Ebell talk about the “expertariat” and the “Climate Industrial Complex” it could not be more obvious that the NYTimes is part and parcel of that interest group. They feel perfectly justified in trying to indoctrinate us into the “correct” way of thinking. Gray Lady, hell, Demented Biddy is more like it.

Janice, 30 years has yet to produce any single regional utility or grid that can run solely on wind turbines, and until that happens, I thought I could call the industry nascent. Maybe I should have used a different adjective, like pathetic, hopeless or dreamlike. ha ha ha

It really is amazing how impermeable Griffie’s brain is to reality.
It’s been explained to him dozens of times that the only reason why Germany’s power grid is stable is because they have ties to other countries that haven’t drunk the wind/solar koolaid and can provide power whenever the renewables aren’t.

You didn’t even have to wait for your score at the end. Every “Wrong” answer was followed by a little gotcha Tisk, Tisk sentence immediately before the next question. I presume every “Correct” answer was followed by praise and a participation award! As mentioned above, the questions were phrased in the format “When will you stop beating your wife?”. Needless to say, the “desired” answer was part of the question.

I am not a mean or vindictive man. But when I see the level of religious furor exhibited by CAGW ‘Scientists’ I fear (and the data show that I have a right to) any study done by said persons should be examined and the raw data, methodology and conclusions examined for biases of even, heaven forbid, manipulation.

Activists are by nature biased and have no place doing science in their religious zeal.

⭘ Is an anagram of “The Monkeys Write.”
⭘ Stinks like the Fulton Fish Market.
⭘ Is a propaganda organ of the Demokratisch Partei.
⭘ Has fallen from its former glory.
⭘ Should be eliminated as a waste of trees.
⭘ Is excellent for lining bird cages.
⭘ Is compost-in-training
⭘ Runs a “redder-than-thou” contest with the Grauniad.
⭘ Sucks like a fruit bat on a mango.

That was one of the exams that was postponed at Berkeley so that students could get some stress-healing therapy after Trump’s win in November. It must have worked as word is the students scored very high.

Mmmm, … where does the NY Times stand on the issue of climate change? Working my way through that … we’re-gonna-try-to-change-your-mind-to-our-way-of thinking-at-your-every-response, passive-aggressive excuse for a poll (i.e., “survey” – clear throat), I couldn’t help wondering.

A really shonky attempt to ‘make it personal’, to instil guilt, shame and worry at a one-on-one level.
The original warfare tactic, smash lots of individual small armies rather than take on one big united army innit?.

and if anyone tries something similar on them, what do we get?
We all know, we’re hit by The Consensus and the appeals to the authority of computer models and satellites.
“My gang’s bigger than your gang” etc and all debate ends there.

Advertisement last year from the NY times, looking for a climate change editor to sensationalize and boost circulation:

From that link:
“Drone footage that shows Greenland melting away. Long narratives about the plight of climate refugees, from Louisiana to Bolivia and beyond. A series on the California drought. Color-coded maps that show how hot it could be in 2060.”

Well, darn it! They already missed their opportunity to cover the California drought, much of which has been rained/snowed away.

No problemo. Extreme weather maps for the year 2060 can still be used for at least another couple of decades. Then when the disasters continue to NOT happen, they can use the same maps and re-date them for the year 2100 (-:

I have to comment on aircraft emissions, and I know a little about them having worked in the industry for 40 years primarily in the area of reducing emissions. Aircraft engine emissions are primarily CO2, CO, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, and particulates. CO2 is fuel burn, the airlines demand the best efficiency possible, and largely make buy decisions on this criteria, so delivering what they demand is the direct route to minimizing CO2. CO and unburned hydrocarbons are products of inefficiency and primarily occur at airports when aircraft are idling and taxiing. The amount of CO and UHC produced are functions of how much fuel the engine is burning, and in these circumstances, it is not much compared to other operating power settings. At cruise conditions, combustor efficiency is over 99.9% and CO and UHC emissions are nil. Planes spend a long time at cruise, and inefficiency is higher fuel burn and higher fuel cost. NOx essentially occurs at high power settings (take-off and climb) when combustor gas temps are near stoichiometric (look it up) in parts of the combustor and atmospheric nitrogen combines with remaining oxygen. It’s controllable to some extent by managing the local fuel-air ratio in the combustor to limit time at high temperature. Thanks to company research and NASA funding, today’s combustors produce 70 or 80% less NOx than combustors in 1995. Maybe more, I retired 5 years ago.
Particulates (smoke) are a nuisance near airports and may have a health impact, but are not global warming concerns. In short, the market will dictate minimization in aircraft emissions — the EPA and EU need not be concerned.

The comment in the “questionaire” about particulate matter is a reference to a new EPA campaign against PM2.5 particulates. There is no actual scientific evidence that it is bad for people, yet. Just wait a bit, while the EPA organises some “scientific” studies to come up with a preordained result.

I’m not understanding why the closing assessment of my test said I did a bad job protecting the environment when all of my decisions would have raised CO2 levels. Plants love CO2. Plants flourish when CO2 is raised higher than they are now. The test producers make it sound like CO2 is poison for plants. Maybe, for the NY Times, “good for the environment” means “keep things as they are, despite what would be good for plants”.

“You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”
(I’m for clean air and clean water and increasing trees and flora in general)…

The NYT’s should study the FACTS about CO2 and Climate Change before putting out this crap…

Wow!!! Talk about Fake News!! This is part of the description in the quiz about the Paris Accords.

“The United States have ratified the agreement and the legally binding requirements that come with it.”

Now, it is true that our prior Irish American president personally agreed to this, then backed it up by the Clean Power Plan push and other unilateral EPA measures, but this is hardly ‘ratified’. This was shoved down everyone’s throats bypassing representative government or the Treaty process of the constitution.

I object to what that paper is saying. The climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero.

The county is in big financial trouble. The federal government is carrying a 20 trillion dollar debt with huge annual deficits. Obamas economic “plan” promised to start paying off the debt starting in FY 2015 but the “plan” failed. We are also posting huge annual trade defiicits. We have to do what ever it takes to turn things around and start getting out of debt. Waisting money on the climate change boondogle must stop. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. One reason would be to help our balance of payments by reducing the need to import foriegn fuel but there is an efficiency problem that has to be considered. We do not want to be importing alternative energy equipment that in terms of cutting down on the need for imported fuel, is not worth the cost of the equipment.

I myself would like to be able to get off the power grid to save money and fuel and to be able to power my home whenever the grid is down but for me the cost to do so is prohibitive to do things that way I would want it done. Maybe some day when the efficiency has improved and the cost is less I will consider it. According to the Paris Climate Agreement it is the rich countries that are suppose to pay for the effort and we, the USA are a poor debetor nation.

I want China to supply me with a free off grid solar energy system to include two all eletric cars and a rain water watering system for my garden so I can also cut down on the use of city water since we are having a drought here in California. I want them to install such a system in my home now but after the insallation I will own it all free and clear. I want repair and upgrade of the system to be free for life.

Indeed, the only “mixed signals” come from the media’s spin on what Trump and his cabinet have said, if you actually go to the source and listen to what Trump has said, he’s pretty consistent on his environmental position whether one agrees with that position or not.

BobM…. She is the middle child and younger daughter of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, and a member of the large Kennedy family… Tatiana graduated from Yale University in 2012 where she had written pieces for The Yale Herald. Soon after graduation Schlossberg has worked at both the Yale Herald and the Bergen Record.
Her work at the Yale Herald mainly focused on first-person arts and entertainment stories…
Probably not the most qualified to report on a matter of Science but that would also describe the NYT Science writers who are ‘qualified’. Advocacy being the main requirement and Tatiana seems to have her share.
Something tells me she may lean a tad toward the Rodham direction but I could be way off line on that one.
But probably not.
Bob. I think we are aware that it be a joke but, as in most NYT articles, the joke is not their intention.

“You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.

On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).”

Funny, I got that too:)

Interesting how the quiz never mentions people who are affected by all this!

In the Print Edition of the Times, where the quiz appears, the back page of that section is a full page ad for a private jet around the world tour , the most climate busting thing you can think of, sponsored by…the New York Times !!!

Guess the ad dept didn’t get the message

As a pro climate change liberal I thought you all would be amused by this
PS: you all buy coastal property, don’t come whining to me for tax dollars to keep the sea at bay

I emailed the public editor:
“The interactive global warming quiz by Ms Schlossberg is scientifically illiterate and ideologically extremely biased. It should be withdrawn immediately and an open apology published to all those it insults who disagree with her misguided stance.”

Very slanted. Naturally, I did poorly based on the criteria of your average Green. The quiz could have been put together by a high school student.

One of it’s worst flaws is that it doesn’t distinguish between abiding by duly passed laws, even when they contradict one’s philosophy regarding renewables and regulations, and whether the laws should have ever been passed to begin with.

It is interesting how after answering each question, the “poll” tried to shame me into answering the PC way. Only one I answered Yes to, was if Donald Trump should enforce a law if it is ruled constitutional by the supreme court. I would say yes for any law though.

How Did You Do?
You did a very bad job protecting the environment and may have made many of the worst effects of climate change more likely. It could hardly have been worse.
On the upside for President Trump, Republicans in Congress and many of the people who voted for him will support most of your decisions. We guess it’s true what they say about dark clouds (something about silver linings?).